Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from Members.

Apologies were received from Councillor Jayne Barry, who was substituted by Councillor Lee Hartshorne, Councillor Peter Elliot who was substituted by Councillor Heather Liggett, Councillor Mo Potts who was substituted by Councillor Roger Hall, Councillor Jacqueline Ridgway who was substituted by Councillor Margaret Jones and Councillor Ross Shipman, who was substituted by Councillor Pam Windley.

Members are requested to declare the existence and nature of any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or other interests, not already on their register of interests, in any item on the agenda and withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate time.

No Declarations of Interest were received.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 25 August 2020.   

The minutes of the last meeting, held on Tuesday 25 August 2020 were agreed as a true record.

The report to Committee explained that an outline application had been submitted, with all matters reserved except for access, layout and scale, for a single storey log cabin, within the existing equestrian facility, for holiday let accommodation at land at the northern junction of Hillhouses Lane and New Road, Wingerworth, for Mr John Cocker.

The application had been referred to the Committee by the local ward Member, Councillor Pat Antcliff who had raised concerns about it.

No objectors spoke against the application

The Applicant spoke in support of the application

The Agent for the application spoke in favour of the application.

No supporters spoke in favour of the application.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Planning issues in reaching its determination on the application. In particular, it considered the Principle of Development and the location of the proposed site outside of any defined Settlement Limit (SDL), falling within the countryside. It also examined the landscape considerations, as well as the privacy and amenity considerations for neighbouring properties. In addition, Committee took into account the highway safety considerations.

Members discussed the application. In particular, they heard about the contribution that the log cabin could play in providing holiday accommodation in Wingerworth, how it would be accessed from the highway and its relationship to the equestrian facility and how this could be controlled through the attachment of an appropriate condition to approval.

RESOLVED -

(a)  That the application be approved in line with officer recommendations.

(b)  That the final conditions be drawn up by the Assistant Director, Planning, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.

1.    Applications for approval of reserved matters are required before development can start and shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be started within two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

2.    Approval of the details of the appearance of the building and the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is started.

3.    The site shall be developed with one log cabin only

4.    The scheme submitted as part of the reserved matters shall include details of the existing grounds levels, proposed finished floor levels of the log cabin and the proposed finished ground levels of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

5.    Before development starts, a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full before the development is brought into use and shall be retained as such thereafter.

6.    Before developments, a plan to show the positions, design, materials, height and type of boundary treatment to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/36/20-21a

The report to Committee explained that an application had been submitted for the removal of 41 poplar trees, covered by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Number 6 in various stages of decline, with previous failures at land to the north and west of ‘The Poplars’, Ankerbold Road, Old Tupton for Mr Edward Chandler – TEP Ltd.

The application had been referred to Committee by the Ward Member Councillor David Hancock, who had raised concerns about it.

Two Ward Members spoke in opposition to the application, Councillor David Hancock and Councillor Ross Shipman

One objector spoke against the application.

No supporters spoke in favour of the application.

Committee considered the application. In this context, it took into account the relevant Planning issues in reaching its determination on the application. These included the potential impact on the public amenity value of the group of trees protected by the Tree Preservation Order, the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties if the trees were removed and the impact on biodiversity in the area.

Members discussed the application. In particular, they discussed concerns about the potential impact on wildlife habitats if the trees were removed, the proposed location and size of the replacement trees and whether further information of the condition of the trees covered by Tree Preservation Order 6 would be required before the Committee could reach a determination on the application.

RESOLVED -

That consideration of the application be deferred, so that a further independent assessment of the health and viability of the trees can take place, with the findings considered by the Committee in its determination of the application.

The report to Committee explained that an outline application had been submitted, with all matters reserved, for the erection of one detached dwelling (affecting the setting of a listed building) at land between Overton Lodge and Brookside Cottage, Fallgate, Milltown, for Stenfold Resources Ltd.  

The application had been referred to the Committee by the Ward Member, Councillor William Armitage, who had raised concerns.

One objector spoke against the application.

The Agent spoke in support of the application

No supporters spoke in favour of the application.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Planning issues in reaching its determination on the application. In particular it considered its location outside any defined settlement development limited and within a designated Special Landscape Area, the landscape implications for the immediate area, the impact on the setting of a listed building and privacy and amenity considerations for neighbouring residents. It also took into account highway safety considerations, as well as ecology and biodiversity considerations.

Members discussed the application. As part of this, they heard the officer concerns that the dwelling would constitute unsustainable development, which would represent an obtrusive encroachment into the countryside and that this would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the special landscape area. They also heard about other developments which had received planning permission in the surrounding area.

RESOLVED -

That in line with officer recommendations planning permission be refused as an unsustainable development in the countryside for the reasons set out in the report.

The application proposes the construction of a single dwelling in a countryside location away from any defined Settlement Development Limit. No special circumstances have been submitted which would justify the construction of a market dwelling in what is considered to be an unsustainable location in the countryside. It is considered that any proposed dwelling would detract from the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area and would appear as an incongruous addition in the street scene. Therefore, to grant permission would be contrary to Local Plan Policies GS1, NE1 and NE2 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, Policies AP2 and AP13 of the Ashover Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework when read as a whole.

The report to Committee explained that a number of appeals had been lodged.

These were:-

          Mr and Mrs Simpson- Demolition of existing garages / storage building and rebuilding to provide a residential bungalow to be occupied by family members at Acorn House, Far Lane, Barlow (19/00564/FL)

          Mr P Leicester - Application for determination of a high hedges complaint relating to conifers at 30 Knighton Street, Hepthorne Lane, North Wingfield (19/00789/HHC)

          Mr J Cash  - Construction of detached two storey two bed dwelling (revised scheme of 18/00251/OL) at The Angel Inn, 127 Rotherham Road, Killamarsh (20/00182/FL)

The following appeal had been dismissed:-

          Mr Bowler – Conversion of garage with first floor extension over at Bonne Vienne, Staveley Road, Duckmanton  (20/00073/FLH)

          Mr and Mrs Corker– Application for American barn style stables and manege (revised scheme of 19/00325/FL) at Cowley Hall Farm, Cowley Lane, Holmesfield  (19/01197/FL)

          Mr Tyrone Henighan– Construction of ground and first floor extension to side and rear to provide new dwelling at 44 Church Lane, Calow  (19/00878/FL)

          Mr Clay – Approval of Reserved Matters (access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) for 3 dwellings pursuant to outline planning permission 15/01225/OL (Affecting a public right of way) at The Bungalow, Park Farm, Park Avenue, Holmesfield (19/00451/RM)

          An appeal for costs was partially allowed.

No Appeals have been allowed or withdrawn

Report of the Assistant Director of Planning

Members were reminded that the Council’s Planning Committee was responsible for Planning Enforcement. On that basis Members were was asked to consider and endorse a ‘Planning Enforcement Plan’ for the Council. Committee heard about the scope and purpose of the proposed Plan and in particular, how it would make clear what the public could reasonably expect from the Planning Service, when reporting a suspected breach of planning control. The Plan would also set out a framework for monitoring performance and workloads of the Planning Enforcement service area.

Committee discussed the draft Plan. Members felt that it would give the public a better understanding of this often contentious area of the Council’s work and provide to all interested parties a service standard to expect and to work to. There was a consensus that the Committee should support the Plan

RESOLVED -

(1)            That Planning Committee endorsed the Planning Enforcement Plan and its approval and adoption.

(2)            That the Committee supported the preparation by the Council’s Communications Team of a resident accessible version of the Plan and a public communication campaign of this.

(3)            That any subsequent amendments to the Plan, required as a result of customer feedback, legislative or regulatory changes, be agreed with the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for the Planning function and Chair of Planning Committee, prior to the formal review of the Plan, in 2024.

REASONS FOR DECISION -

Approval and publication of the Plan would give the public a better understanding of the planning enforcement function and provide to all interested parties a service standard to expect and to work to.

OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED -

The option of not preparing a Planning Enforcement Plan for the District was considered but rejected. It would not help the public or the many others who often have just periodic interest in enforcement cases to understand the context in which the system works to and thereby manage their expectations.

To consider any other matter which the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no matters of urgency.